Tilton et al v. Francis et al - Document No. 10

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 28 | Comments: 0 | Views: 318
of 10
Download PDF   Embed   Report

ANSWER and affirmative defenses to complaint with Jury Demand by Joseph R. Francis, Mantra Films, Inc..(Richard, Barry) 8:2007cv00432 Florida Middle District Court

Comments

Content

Tilton et al v. Francis et al

Doc. 10

Case 8:07-cv-00432-JSM-MAP

Document 10

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION JULIE TILTON, NICOLE BREITFELLER, and TABITHA GAUTREAUX, Plaintiffs, vs. JOSEPH R. FRANCIS, MRA HOLDINGS, L.L.C., MANTRA FILMS, INC., d/b/a Girls Gone Wild, AMX PRODUCTIONS, L.L.C. d/b/a AMX Video a/k/a GM Video a/k/a George Martin Video a/k/a Action Matrix, a/k/a Aztec Media Co., and SVOTHI, INC., d/b/a PPVNetworks a/k/a Nakedontv.com Defendants.

CASE NO. 8:07-CV-00432

JOSEPH R. FRANCIS’ AND MANTRA FILMS, INC.’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants, Joseph R. Francis and Mantra Films, Inc. (hereinafter “the Mantra Defendants”), file their answer and affirmative defenses to the Complaint filed by Julie Tilton, Nicole Breitfeller, and Tabitha Gautreaux, and state as follows: The Parties 1. admitted. 2. 3. Admitted. Admitted. Denied that Joseph R. Francis is a resident of Nevada. Otherwise

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 8:07-cv-00432-JSM-MAP

Document 10

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 2 of 10

4. 5.

Without knowledge. Without knowledge. Jurisdiction and Venue

6. 7.

Admitted for jurisdictional purposes. Admitted that products, materials, things processed, serviced, produced or

manufactured by the Mantra Defendants were used or consumed in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce, trade or use. Denied as to the remaining allegations. 8. 9. Without knowledge. Denied. General Allegations Common to All Counts 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Without knowledge. Without knowledge. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Without knowledge. Without knowledge. Denied. Without knowledge. Denied.

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

Case 8:07-cv-00432-JSM-MAP

Document 10

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 3 of 10

Count 1: Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a) MRA Holdings, LLC; Mantra Films; Joseph R. Francis

23.

The Mantra Defendants restate and incorporate their responses to

paragraphs 1 through 22, as if fully set forth herein. 24. The Mantra Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiffs are attempting to

bring a claim under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) but deny that they violated 18 U.S.C. §2255(a). 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Count 2: Violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a) MRA Holdings, LLC; Mantra Films, Inc.; Joseph R. Francis

37.

The Mantra Defendants restate and incorporate their responses to

paragraphs 1 through 22 and 25 through 34, as if fully set forth herein.

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

Case 8:07-cv-00432-JSM-MAP

Document 10

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 4 of 10

38.

The Mantra Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiffs are attempting to

bring claims under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a) and 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a), but deny that the Mantra Defendants violated such statutes. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Denied Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied.

Count 3: Violation of 18 U.S.C. §1466A(a)(1) MRA Holdings, LLC; Mantra Films, Inc.; Joseph R. Francis 44. The Mantra Defendants restate and incorporate their responses to

paragraphs 1 through 22 and 25 through 34, as if fully set forth herein. 45. The Mantra Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiffs are attempting to

bring a claim under 18 U.S.C. §1466A(a)(1) but deny that they violated 18 U.S.C. §1466A(a)(1). 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied Denied Denied. Denied.

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

Case 8:07-cv-00432-JSM-MAP

Document 10

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 5 of 10

Count 4: Violations of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a) AMX Productions, L.L.C. 54. - 70. Paragraphs 54 -70 make allegations that are not directed to the

Mantra Defendants, and therefore no response to these allegations is required. To the extent that such allegations may be interpreted as requiring a response, the allegations are denied.

Count 5: Violations of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a) AMX Productions, L.L.C. 71. - 82. Paragraphs 71 through 82 make allegations that are not directed to

the Mantra Defendants, and therefore no response to these allegations is required. To the extent that such allegations may be interpreted as requiring a response, the allegations are denied.

Count 6: Violations of 18 U.S.C. §1466A(a)(1) AMX Video Productions 83. - 91. Paragraphs 83 through 91 make allegations that are not directed to

the Mantra Defendants, and therefore no response to these allegations is required. To the extent that such allegations may be interpreted as requiring a response, the allegations are denied.

Count 7: Violations of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a) SVOTHI, Inc.

92. - 101.

Paragraphs 92 through 101 make allegations that are not directed

to the Mantra Defendants, and therefore no response to these allegations is required. To

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

Case 8:07-cv-00432-JSM-MAP

Document 10

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 6 of 10

the extent that such allegations may be interpreted as requiring a response, the allegations are denied. Count 8: Violations of 18 U.S.C. §1466A(a)(1) SVOTHI, Inc. 102. - 113. Paragraphs 102 through 113 make allegations that are not directed

to the Mantra Defendants, and therefore no response to these allegations is required. To the extent that such allegations may be interpreted as requiring a response, the allegations are denied.

Count 9: Violations of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a) SVOTHI, Inc. 114. - 127. Paragraphs 114 through 127 make allegations that are not

directed to the Mantra Defendants, and therefore no response to these allegations is required. To the extent that such allegations may be interpreted as requiring a response, the allegations are denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Mantra Defendants. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the affirmative defense of reasonable mistake of age, because the Mantra Defendants did not know and could not have reasonably learned, that plaintiffs were under the age of 18.

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

Case 8:07-cv-00432-JSM-MAP

Document 10

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 7 of 10

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The negligent or intentional acts of plaintiffs were the sole legal cause of plaintiffs’ damages, if any.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The negligent or intentional acts of plaintiffs were a contributing cause of plaintiffs’ damages, if any, and should be compared to that of the Mantra Defendants to reduce such damages, if any.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ assumption of a known risk was the sole legal cause of their damages, if any.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The negligence or intentional actions of third parties, who hosted or recorded this event, is the sole legal cause of plaintiffs’ damages, if any.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 because the plaintiffs were no longer minors when the alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a) and 2252A(a) allegedly occurred.

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

Case 8:07-cv-00432-JSM-MAP

Document 10

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 8 of 10

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands to the extent that plaintiffs expressly or impliedly misrepresented their ages to gain access to the events at issue. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of illegality to the extent that plaintiffs’ participated in the commission of illegal activities including, without limitation, engaging in underage drinking and trespassing on private property.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they fraudulently induced the owners of the Desert Inn to allow them to take part in the events at issue by representing that they were at least eighteen years old, and the Mantra Defendants relied upon those representations to their detriment. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs have already been fully compensated for their injuries, if any, by other defendants in previous lawsuits.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs consented to the publication of their likeness and image.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252 and 2252A violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution facially because they criminalize and create civil liability for engaging in a substantial amount of speech protected by the First Amendment in the absence of

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

Case 8:07-cv-00432-JSM-MAP

Document 10

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 9 of 10

sufficient governmental interests for such criminalization or creation of liability, and they are not properly narrowed to serve those interests that supposedly justify such criminalization or creation of liability. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of laches in that Plaintiffs unreasonably delayed in bringing this action to the disadvantage of Mantra Defendants. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel in that they represented that they were at least eighteen years old, and Mantra Defendants relied upon those representations to their detriment. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiffs expressly consented to a release prior to taking part in the events that are at issue. The Mantra Defendants hereby demand trial by jury. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7742 Telephone: (850) 222-6891 Facsimile: (850) 681-0207 s/Barry Richard BARRY RICHARD FLORIDA BAR NO. 105599 E-MAIL: [email protected] LAUREEN E. GALEOTO FLORIDA BAR NO. 194107 E-MAIL: [email protected] KARUSHA Y. SHARPE FLORIDA BAR NO. 0540161 E-MAIL: [email protected] Counsel for Defendants

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

Case 8:07-cv-00432-JSM-MAP

Document 10

Filed 05/22/2007

Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via electronic service upon the following on this 22nd day of May, 2007: The Solommon Tropp Law Group, P.A. Stanford R. Solomon, Esq. Mark S. Howard, Esq. Thomas E. DeBerg, Esq. 1881 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, FL 33606-1606 and Richard S. Shankman, Esq. Litigation Concepts, L.C. 2536 NW 53rd Street Boca Raton, FL 33496-2204

s/Barry Richard
TAL 451397692v3 5/22/2007

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close